Content may be a 100 billion a year industry, but copyright violation does not put that full $100 B at risk. Why settle on the pre-Bono copyright term? Why do

Content may be a 100 billion a year industry, but copyright violation does not put that full $100 B at risk. Why settle on the pre-Bono copyright term? Why do you pick that instead of the original 14 years + 14 year renewal? I think you've already decided you want copyright more or less the way it is, so you throw copyright doves a bone (breadcrumb?) by offering a single undo, and hope someone bites. If you try to examine copyright law from basic principles, rather than from the perspective of the status quo, it becomes very tough to support even the pre-Bono copyright terms of life+50 years (personal) or 75 years (corporate), automatic, with registration only required to collect punitive damages, but not required to sue (harass) arguably legitimate fair users of content. How does compulsory licensing work without capping license fees? Content creators have a monopoly. Forcing them to charge something for licensing does no good; they can set the price arbitrarily high. If you cap the fees, you have to have a very complex formula so that you can arrive at a maximum license fee, given an arbitrary piece of intellectual property, and some arbitrary proposed licensed use of that IP. Complex regulation like that invites abuse by anyone with the resources to lobby, so it becomes a lobbying contest rather than an attempted equitable settlement (how do you judge what's fair pricing for license of IP that's held by a monopoly?). If that wasn't bad enough, by capping fees you've effectively partially socialized the IP content industry: The free market and private industry would no longer be the primary drivers of the economics of IP. I think everyone, even copyright doves like myself, fantasize about creating some incredibly desirable piece of IP that we can live off of for life. We just differ in the judgment of effectiveness, actual financial benefit, and collateral damage related to taking legal action against non-for-profit filesharers. I am only addressing the political and legal problems here; not the practical, ethical, and technological enforcement problems, of which I think there are many.